Most of those points cannot be made at this point as the 2007 season must play out for each of the respective pieces of the deal. As for Bmac's track record, besides those several starts in 2005, he has been an average pitcher.

CashMan

12-27-2006, 01:37 PM

http://whitesox.mostvaluablenetwork.com/

Excellent piece by Jake Berlin at MVN.com. Here's a summary:

1) McCarthy has a better track record than does Danks.

2) McCarthy has proven himself in the majors.

3) This makes the Freddy Garcia deal a complete waste.

4) This was in no way getting “bowled” over.

5) The Sox are primed to win now, not in five years.

6) What about the outfield?

7) The age difference simply doesn’t matter that much.

8) LOOGY SHMOOGY

9) Scott Boras.

10) You’ve gotta love Don Cooper, but…

My top 10:

1. I dont think so, he might of made a half dozen or so starts and a year in the bullpen with a bad ERA.
2. 4.68 ERA last year.
3. I dont think so, he restocked the minors a little, plus Freddie had a bad ERA last year.
4.ok..
5. I might agree there, but if the one guy can pitch in the pen i think Floyd will be ok in the #5 role.
6. Sweeney, Fields, Anderson....idk.
7. I guess.
8. ok..
9. OK
10. Coop cannot cure loosing 7MPH off your fastball or shoulder fatigue from the playoffs from the year before.

ondafarm

12-27-2006, 01:38 PM

http://whitesox.mostvaluablenetwork.com/

Excellent piece by Jake Berlin at MVN.com. Here's a summary:

4) This was in no way getting “bowled” over.

6) What about the outfield?

…

This was not an excellenet piece and especially these two comments show he knows nothing about baseball.

samram

12-27-2006, 01:40 PM

So a handful of decent starts and a mediocre season in the bullpen qualify a guy as proven? I think Brandon will be a nice pitcher in MLB, but let's not pencil him in for 15 wins a year in 2007 and beyond just yet.

AuroraSoxFan

12-27-2006, 01:45 PM

I have to say, I was NOT a fan of the trade in any way. I think what the Sox did to McCarthy was shady. He could have started for probably 20 teams or more last season. Instead he took a pen role for the 1st time in his life under the "promise" that they'd have a spot for him in 2007. Then they just deal him for 3 guys with no real ML experience. If they wanted to deal him they should have dealt him last year instead of eating up a year of his career as a starter. I also don't buy the "trade for young talent" line. They make it sound like Brandon was 40 or something.

But enough of that. It is history. No choice but to try to have as much confidence in the new kids that were acquired in the Freddy/Brandon deals. There are 5 total if I'm not mistaken. If 2 or 3 can turn out well it will be a good deal in the long run. The big issue there is that in Chicago nobody gives a damn about the long run. Fans want to win big now.

CashMan

12-27-2006, 01:47 PM

I have to say, I was NOT a fan of the trade in any way. I think what the Sox did to McCarthy was shady. He could have started for probably 20 teams or more last season. Instead he took a pen role for the 1st time in his life under the "promise" that they'd have a spot for him in 2007. Then they just deal him for 3 guys with no real ML experience. If they wanted to deal him they should have dealt him last year instead of eating up a year of his career as a starter. I also don't buy the "trade for young talent" line. They make it sound like Brandon was 40 or something.

But enough of that. It is history. No choice but to try to have as much confidence in the new kids that were acquired in the Freddy/Brandon deals. There are 5 total if I'm not mistaken. If 2 or 3 can turn out well it will be a good deal in the long run. The big issue there is that in Chicago nobody gives a damn about the long run. Fans want to win big now.

Good points, BTW what did the MAriners get in the Randy Johnson trade from the Astros?

fquaye149

12-27-2006, 01:49 PM

Good points, BTW what did the MAriners get in the Randy Johnson trade from the Astros?

Freddy, Carlos Guillen, and....Rafael Soriano if I'm not mistaken?

veeter

12-27-2006, 01:50 PM

Why don't we see how the players involved in the trade, perform over the next few seasons. Then we can evaluate the trade. My personnal feeling is that, if the media hates it...it must be a very good trade. Everybody hated the C.Lee trade too.

Unregistered

12-27-2006, 01:51 PM

My top 10:

1. I dont think so, he might of made a half dozen or so starts and a year in the bullpen with a bad ERA.
2. 4.68 ERA last year.
3. I dont think so, he restocked the minors a little, plus Freddie had a bad ERA last year.
4.ok..
5. I might agree there, but if the one guy can pitch in the pen i think Floyd will be ok in the #5 role.
6. Sweeney, Fields, Anderson....idk.
7. I guess.
8. ok..
9. OK
10. Coop cannot cure loosing 7MPH off your fastball or shoulder fatigue from the playoffs from the year before.

and #11: It's December 27th. Let's wait until the offseason is at least CLOSE to over before writing these stupid articles.

fquaye149

12-27-2006, 01:52 PM

Not to mention #3, Freddy Garcia was a reason the Sox won the World ****ing Series. If that counts as a "waste," then fine...

and #11: It's December 27th. Let's wait until the offseason is at least CLOSE to over before writing these stupid articles.

I think he's talking about the Freddy for Gio and Floyd deal....

Unregistered

12-27-2006, 01:54 PM

I think he's talking about the Freddy for Gio and Floyd deal....

Yeah, caught that. Still... stupid. :D:

fquaye149

12-27-2006, 01:54 PM

Yeah, caught that. Still... stupid.

oh totally

voodoochile

12-27-2006, 01:54 PM

Good points, BTW what did the MAriners get in the Randy Johnson trade from the Astros?

Thought they got Freddy Garcia, but I admit I am going off of memory...

havelj

12-27-2006, 01:54 PM

and #11: It's December 27th. Let's wait until the offseason is at least CLOSE to over before writing these stupid articles.

AGREE!

AuroraSoxFan

12-27-2006, 01:55 PM

Good points, BTW what did the MAriners get in the Randy Johnson trade from the Astros?

I do not remember that trade too well. One that is more recent though involves our own AJ. MN took a gamble trading a proven guy for some younger guys who WERE unproven. That deal worked well for them.

fquaye149

12-27-2006, 01:57 PM

Thought they got Freddy Garcia, but I admit I am going off of memory...

It was Freddy and Carlos Guillen and a third player who was a pitcher...

I THINK it was Soriano

edit: It was John Halama

samram

12-27-2006, 01:58 PM

Freddy, Carlos Guillen, and....Rafael Soriano if I'm not mistaken?

I think it was John Halama instead of Soriano.

Edit: Caught it before my post.

voodoochile

12-27-2006, 02:02 PM

It was Freddy and Carlos Guillen and a third player who was a pitcher...

I THINK it was Soriano

edit: It was John Halama

That's some pretty decent return, of course just because one guyt got traded for prospects and it worked out okay, doesn't mean it always will. Still, people wringing their hands over trading McCarthy who like him or not is unproven (could turn into Jon Garland or could turn into Danny Wright) seems pretty silly.

Daver

12-27-2006, 02:03 PM

This is great, another propellerhead that is basing an opinion strictly on numbers.

Will someone please let me know when a number actually puts on a glove and plays a friggin game? Till then I will continue to hold propellerheads in the same regard I do to stepping in dog crap.

fquaye149

12-27-2006, 02:06 PM

That's some pretty decent return, of course just because one guyt got traded for prospects and it worked out okay, doesn't mean it always will. Still, people wringing their hands over trading McCarthy who like him or not is unproven (could turn into Jon Garland or could turn into Danny Wright) seems pretty silly.

plus, it was 5 years ago---a completely different environment.

here, in case you were wondering, is rob dibble's analysis of the trade:
http://community.foxsports.com/blogs/Dibble/Carlos_Guillen/31069

ondafarm

12-27-2006, 02:23 PM

This is great, another propellerhead that is basing an opinion strictly on numbers.

Will someone please let me know when a number actually puts on a glove and plays a friggin game? Till then I will continue to hold propellerheads in the same regard I do to stepping in dog crap.

I was going to ask what you thought of me . . .

I did play three minor league seasons wearing the tools of ignorance but I now do stats for a living. Admitedly, pharmaceutical stats and not baseball stats, but. I do think numbers can help an analysis but shouldn't be the only thing considered. I'm still trying to create a situational batting average, which would be a serious stat, but it doesn't mean that Ozzie's gut feelings wouldn't outweigh it everytime.

ChiSoxLifer

12-27-2006, 02:49 PM

I have to say, I was NOT a fan of the trade in any way. I think what the Sox did to McCarthy was shady. He could have started for probably 20 teams or more last season. Instead he took a pen role for the 1st time in his life under the "promise" that they'd have a spot for him in 2007. Then they just deal him for 3 guys with no real ML experience. If they wanted to deal him they should have dealt him last year instead of eating up a year of his career as a starter. I also don't buy the "trade for young talent" line. They make it sound like Brandon was 40 or something.

But enough of that. It is history. No choice but to try to have as much confidence in the new kids that were acquired in the Freddy/Brandon deals. There are 5 total if I'm not mistaken. If 2 or 3 can turn out well it will be a good deal in the long run. The big issue there is that in Chicago nobody gives a damn about the long run. Fans want to win big now.

I respectfully disagree. The White Sox had Brandon under contract to perform for them in the manner they see fit whether it's as a starter or as a reliever. As a starter in 2005 he was pretty damn good for about 5 games and helped save the season. In 2006 as a reliever, he was not that good. If he was ruined by being forced to be a reliever, why wasn't Papelbon ruined when he saved 35 games with a 0.92 era? Your job is to get batters out no matter the situation. Brandon was not very good at it in 2006.

sox1970

12-27-2006, 02:54 PM

I respectfully disagree. The White Sox had Brandon under contract to perform for them in the manner they see fit whether it's as a starter or as a reliever. As a starter in 2005 he was pretty damn good for about 5 games and helped save the season. In 2006 as a reliever, he was not that good. If he was ruined by being forced to be a reliever, why wasn't Papelbon ruined when he saved 35 games with a 0.92 era? Your job is to get batters out no matter the situation. Brandon was not very good at it in 2006.

I agree with you to a point, but I think Ozzie/Kenny should have realized that the bullpen thing just isn't for McCarthy. He's a creature of habit. He was built to be a starter. He should have been in AAA last year and ready to be called up when Contreras went down.

southside rocks

12-27-2006, 02:57 PM

I respectfully disagree. The White Sox had Brandon under contract to perform for them in the manner they see fit whether it's as a starter or as a reliever. As a starter in 2005 he was pretty damn good for about 5 games and helped save the season. In 2006 as a reliever, he was not that good. If he was ruined by being forced to be a reliever, why wasn't Papelbon ruined when he saved 35 games with a 0.92 era? Your job is to get batters out no matter the situation. Brandon was not very good at it in 2006.

I agree.

But gosh, I hope no team ever "does to" McCarthy what the Sox did in '06: keep him on the active roster of a World Series Championship team and give him an opportunity to pitch pretty regularly, even though he's behind a starting rotation of four guys who pitched the team to that WS championship, and who are so far above Brandon as a pitcher that he should be shining their shoes before every game.

Will someone please let me know when a number actually puts on a glove and plays a friggin game?

Bill Veeck actually wanted to sign the number 43 to play a game for the Cleveland Indians in 1947. Indeed, 43 threw a no-hitter, had an unassisted triple play and hit for the cycle (the homer being an inside the park grand slam) in a single game during the 1940 Ohio high school state championship tournament before getting drafted into the U.S. Army. Moreover, the number 43 had three three arms - the third one was under his "normal" left arm and was just half the length of his regular left arm - and therefore he could wear two gloves and pitch with each of his three hands! But 43 was injured in a freak cow milking accident while Veeck was on his way to sign him to his major league contract. Despondent, he joined Circus Vargas as a sword swallower, tent pitcher and freak show attraction (he also had a hairlip, a cyclops eye and cloven hooves on his feet) and died of the clap in 1956.
:redneck

Baby Fisk

12-27-2006, 03:15 PM

Bill Veeck actually wanted to sign the number 43 to play a game for the Cleveland Indians in 1947. Indeed, 43 threw a no-hitter, had an unassisted triple play and hit for the cycle (the homer being an inside the park grand slam) in a single game during the 1940 Ohio high school state championship tournament before getting drafted into the U.S. Army. Moreover, the number 43 had three three arms (the third one was under his "normal" left arm and was just half the length of his regular left arm and therefore he could wear two gloves and pitch with each of his three hands! But 43 was injured in a freak cow milking accident while Veeck was on his way to sign him to his major league contract. Despondent, he joined Circus Vargas as a sword swallower, tent pitcher and freak show attraction (he also had a hairlip, a cyclops eye and cloven hooves on his feet) and died of the clap in 1956.
:redneck

I read most of the back cover blurb of Veeck as in Wreck and nowhere is that mentioned! Although this totally sounds something like Veeck would do, so I do not doubt you.

AuroraSoxFan

12-27-2006, 03:25 PM

I respectfully disagree. The White Sox had Brandon under contract to perform for them in the manner they see fit whether it's as a starter or as a reliever. As a starter in 2005 he was pretty damn good for about 5 games and helped save the season. In 2006 as a reliever, he was not that good. If he was ruined by being forced to be a reliever, why wasn't Papelbon ruined when he saved 35 games with a 0.92 era? Your job is to get batters out no matter the situation. Brandon was not very good at it in 2006.

I didn't recall saying the guy was ruined or doomed or anything else. always love the way stuff gets twisted here. I just think it is incredibly clear that he is set out to be a starting pitcher and not a reliever. And if they were going to part ways with him it should have been before last season and not this one. Probably could have actually gotten more for him going into 06 than 07.

AuroraSoxFan

12-27-2006, 03:37 PM

I agree.

But gosh, I hope no team ever "does to" McCarthy what the Sox did in '06: keep him on the active roster of a World Series Championship team and give him an opportunity to pitch pretty regularly, even though he's behind a starting rotation of four guys who pitched the team to that WS championship, and who are so far above Brandon as a pitcher that he should be shining their shoes before every game.

I do not know which four guys you were referring to that are so far above Brandon that he should be shining their shoes. But what about these numbers leads you to believe that any of the 06 sox starters are superior to anyone???

Freddy and Garland had impressive records but that was only because of the offensive run support. Buerhle blew up big time 2nd half and Contreras tanked big time after going 8-0. Brandon's ERA was similar to theirs. I'm not even a big fan of McCarthy's. He may go on to do very well. He may get beaten out of the league in a year or 2. I don't really care at this point. But you make like the guys ahead of him last year are HOF shoe-ins or something when their numbers were average at best.

southside rocks

12-27-2006, 03:47 PM

I do not know which four guys you were referring to that are so far above Brandon that he should be shining their shoes. But what about these numbers leads you to believe that any of the 06 sox starters are superior to anyone???

Freddy and Garland had impressive records but that was only because of the offensive run support. Buerhle blew up big time 2nd half and Contreras tanked big time after going 8-0. Brandon's ERA was similar to theirs. I'm not even a big fan of McCarthy's. He may go on to do very well. He may get beaten out of the league in a year or 2. I don't really care at this point. But you make like the guys ahead of him last year are HOF shoe-ins or something when their numbers were average at best.

You're citing the 2006 stats, and I'm talking about the 2005 performances of Buehrle, Contreras, Garland and Garcia. Those performances, not their '06 showings, were the reason that they were the big 4 of the rotation last season and the reason that McCarthy was relegated to the bullpen.

I know very well what they did last year and how underwhelming it was. :(: Unfortunately, McCarthy also was underwhelming in 2006, which may be one reason why he's gone now.

They're not HOF'er's -- not yet, maybe not ever. But they are quality, solid, proven winning MLB pitchers who pitched their team to a WS championship, and McCarthy doesn't yet have those credentials. Whether he ever gets them remains to be seen. Don Cooper had this to say today: "Does McCarthy have a chance to be a quality big-league starter? Sure. But there are no guarantees."

I'm just amused by the idea that somehow McCarthy was put-upon by the White Sox last season.

As to whether they could have gotten more for him in a trade before the '06 season: I don't know, but do you really think so? The prices for pitching seem to have gotten crazy-insane after the '06 season, not before. I think the Sox got quite a good return on the McCarthy trade.

AuroraSoxFan

12-27-2006, 03:59 PM

I'm just amused by the idea that somehow McCarthy was put-upon by the White Sox last season.

As to whether they could have gotten more for him in a trade before the '06 season: I don't know, but do you really think so? The prices for pitching seem to have gotten crazy-insane after the '06 season, not before. I think the Sox got quite a good return on the McCarthy trade.

Can't argue that the current pitching market is ridiculous. If I remember right they gave Mc a choice going into last season. Break camp with the team as a reliever or go to AAA as a starter. He chose to go into the ML season as a reliever. I'm not crying a river for the guy or anything. But the other part of that deal was that he'd come out of the pen for 06 and they'd have a spot for him in 07. I know nothing in pro sports is ever guaranteed. Spots come and go like nothing. I also do not know if Sox mgmt had the whole thing mapped out ahead of time or not. If they did in fact have intentions of dealing him all the while I say it should have happened last year. Probably could have gotten some of the same prospects we landed this offseason plus another fairly reliable pen guy who may not have blown some of the games the way Cotts/Pollitte/Brandon etc did.

But hell with it. It's all history and "what if's". All that can be done now is to pull for the 5 new arms that were imported and hope they turn out well. If 2-3 turn out well and have at least a few quality years with the Sox KW looks like a genius. If none turn out well he looks bad. Simple risks of the business.

TDog

12-27-2006, 05:27 PM

I have to say, I was NOT a fan of the trade in any way. I think what the Sox did to McCarthy was shady. He could have started for probably 20 teams or more last season. Instead he took a pen role for the 1st time in his life under the "promise" that they'd have a spot for him in 2007. Then they just deal him for 3 guys with no real ML experience. If they wanted to deal him they should have dealt him last year instead of eating up a year of his career as a starter. I also don't buy the "trade for young talent" line. They make it sound like Brandon was 40 or something. ...

If McCarthy had been in the 2006 rotation, his trade value probably would have been less because it would have made people forget about the good starts he made in 2005. He should have been able to perform in his bullpen role. It wasn't as if he was a heavily used closer. He didn't come back three days in a row. If he had trouble pitching two innings on three days rest from pitching one or two innings, I believe it would be unlikely he would have a lot of outings going seven or eight innings shutting down opponents on four days rest. If he had an attitude problem in the bullpen, that raises another question entirely.

The White Sox apparently believe they know the real Brandon McCarthy. They could be wrong, but everyone else is guessing.

pearso66

12-27-2006, 06:24 PM

Can't argue that the current pitching market is ridiculous. If I remember right they gave Mc a choice going into last season. Break camp with the team as a reliever or go to AAA as a starter. He chose to go into the ML season as a reliever. I'm not crying a river for the guy or anything. But the other part of that deal was that he'd come out of the pen for 06 and they'd have a spot for him in 07. I know nothing in pro sports is ever guaranteed. Spots come and go like nothing. I also do not know if Sox mgmt had the whole thing mapped out ahead of time or not. If they did in fact have intentions of dealing him all the while I say it should have happened last year. Probably could have gotten some of the same prospects we landed this offseason plus another fairly reliable pen guy who may not have blown some of the games the way Cotts/Pollitte/Brandon etc did.

But hell with it. It's all history and "what if's". All that can be done now is to pull for the 5 new arms that were imported and hope they turn out well. If 2-3 turn out well and have at least a few quality years with the Sox KW looks like a genius. If none turn out well he looks bad. Simple risks of the business.

I Don't think the White Sox ever intended to trade McCarthy, and I believe that in their minds, he would start in their rotation this season. But things change. McCarthy was less than stellar last year, and maybe they thought he took a step backwards instead of improving like they thought he should have. Plus they got one of the top pitching prospects in baseball plus another close to major league pitcher in return. Everybody can be traded for the right price.

I do have to say in your first post it does look like you are saying "Those mean White Sox tricked McCarthy into going into the pen against his wishes, and said that he was guaranteed a spot in the rotation the following year." In this post I quoted, you said that they asked him what he'd like to do, and he said go in the pen for the Sox instead of starting in AAA. He had to know he was assuming some risk, in that if he doesn't succeed, it's possible he wouldn't be handed a starting position, as nothing is guaranteed with baseball.

santo=dorf

12-27-2006, 06:33 PM

What exactly is McCarthy's track record?

http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs/4662_P_season_full_4_20061001.png

Grzegorz

12-27-2006, 09:47 PM

I have to say, I was NOT a fan of the trade in any way. I think what the Sox did to McCarthy was shady. He could have started for probably 20 teams or more last season. Instead he took a pen role for the 1st time in his life under the "promise" that they'd have a spot for him in 2007.

Life promises you nothing...

My initial natural reaction to the deal was a negative one. Now, I am not so sure that it was a bad deal. Restocking the farm system and getting two potential starters (Floyd/Sisco) for the fifth spot might prove to be quite an insightful move. One has to like the potential of Danks.

It is interesting that on the Score today (12/27) that Steve Stone felt that McCarthy's fastball lacked movement in addition to speculating that McCarthy might not be coachable. These reasons, in his opinion, might have led KW to make this trade.

We will see; this spring training will be the most interesting in my recent memory.

Daver

12-27-2006, 11:55 PM

I was going to ask what you thought of me . . .

I did play three minor league seasons wearing the tools of ignorance but I now do stats for a living. Admitedly, pharmaceutical stats and not baseball stats, but. I do think numbers can help an analysis but shouldn't be the only thing considered. I'm still trying to create a situational batting average, which would be a serious stat, but it doesn't mean that Ozzie's gut feelings wouldn't outweigh it everytime.

Who are you again?

:wink:

Stats are a tool, like any tool it has to be used properly.

Projecting anything based purely on numbers based on the past when there is a human variable is pure mental masturbation, because the human variable will skew the numbers to the point that they are meaningless. These propellerheads would be better off weighing stool samples on a daily basis, and projecting the size of the turd they will produce in a week.

CashMan

12-28-2006, 12:03 AM

Who are you again?

:wink:

Stats are a tool, like any tool it has to be used properly.

Projecting anything based purely on numbers based on the past when there is a human variable is pure mental masturbation, because the human variable will skew the numbers to the point that they are meaningless. These propellerheads would be better off weighing stool samples on a daily basis, and projecting the size of the turd they will produce in a week.

(Mike Murphy voice) Did somebody say Tool?

ondafarm

12-28-2006, 02:11 AM

Who are you again?

:wink:

Stats are a tool, like any tool it has to be used properly.

Projecting anything based purely on numbers based on the past when there is a human variable is pure mental masturbation, because the human variable will skew the numbers to the point that they are meaningless. These propellerheads would be better off weighing stool samples on a daily basis, and projecting the size of the turd they will produce in a week.

"Crash programs fail because they predict that with nine women pregnant you get one baby per month."
Werner von Braun

If you asked me about something direct like pitch velocity or bat speed or even number of home runs, then I'd say that numeric predictions are quite useful. When it comes down to complex things like how well teams will perform or even how pitcher-catcher combos will perform, things take a huge leap away from general predictability.

AuroraSoxFan

12-28-2006, 09:32 AM

As I have stated 3-4 times now, it is history. Brandon is a done deal. Only time I'll pay attention to him is if he ever hurls against the Sox. Beyond that I really do not care what he does. I simply think the Sox did not live up to their end of the bargain with the guy. but that happens in any big business. Part of life if you ask me.

There's one thing I'd be willing to wager on though. All of the core supporters of the trade who are adamantly defending KW over it will probably be the first ones on here ripping him for doing the deal if Brandon has a good year for TX and the prospects the Sox got for him do not make an immediate impact.

SBSoxFan

12-28-2006, 10:04 AM

As I have stated 3-4 times now, it is history. Brandon is a done deal. Only time I'll pay attention to him is if he ever hurls against the Sox. Beyond that I really do not care what he does. I simply think the Sox did not live up to their end of the bargain with the guy. but that happens in any big business. Part of life if you ask me.

There's one thing I'd be willing to wager on though. All of the core supporters of the trade who are adamantly defending KW over it will probably be the first ones on here ripping him for doing the deal if Brandon has a good year for TX and the prospects the Sox got for him do not make an immediate impact.

Isn't he penciled in as the #3 starter? I think he's going to have a tough time next year as a middle-of-the-rotation guy.

southside rocks

12-28-2006, 10:44 AM

As I have stated 3-4 times now, it is history. Brandon is a done deal. Only time I'll pay attention to him is if he ever hurls against the Sox. Beyond that I really do not care what he does. I simply think the Sox did not live up to their end of the bargain with the guy. but that happens in any big business. Part of life if you ask me.

There's one thing I'd be willing to wager on though. All of the core supporters of the trade who are adamantly defending KW over it will probably be the first ones on here ripping him for doing the deal if Brandon has a good year for TX and the prospects the Sox got for him do not make an immediate impact.

As far as living up to bargains: we have no way at all of knowing what Brandon was supposed to do to uphold his end of any bargain, and whether or not he did it. In the absence of any real info, I am not going to come to any conclusions.

The Steve Stone comment, which someone mentioned, about the organization maybe thinking that McCarthy is "uncoachable" is interesting, and we don't know what Mac might have done to produce that impression in Sox management, do we?

I don't know that I'm a "core supporter" in your terms, but I will never rip Kenny Williams for this trade. He made the trade based on what he knows now about the parties involved and what he and his scouts project for them. If the future holds something different, that doesn't change the factors that were in place when the trade was made.

AuroraSoxFan

12-28-2006, 11:06 AM

As far as living up to bargains: we have no way at all of knowing what Brandon was supposed to do to uphold his end of any bargain, and whether or not he did it. In the absence of any real info, I am not going to come to any conclusions.

The Steve Stone comment, which someone mentioned, about the organization maybe thinking that McCarthy is "uncoachable" is interesting, and we don't know what Mac might have done to produce that impression in Sox management, do we?

I don't know that I'm a "core supporter" in your terms, but I will never rip Kenny Williams for this trade. He made the trade based on what he knows now about the parties involved and what he and his scouts project for them. If the future holds something different, that doesn't change the factors that were in place when the trade was made.

So tell me then, who will be the #5 starter? Everyone says Danks is a top prospect. BM was the same thing in 04-05. It is possible one of the kids we have can step in and win some games. But just like with BM there are surely no guarantees.

It is also possible that Buerhle/Contreras/Javy can have much better years. If that happens it won't be as crucial to have a 5th starter win a whole lot of games. And I won't even get into possible improvements on the offensive side from several position players.

I just don't get why you'd trade a 23 year old for "young talent." If a starter on the Sox were pushing 40 it would make more sense to me.

It is true that nobody knows what we'd get from BM. But nobody knows what we will ever get from ANY of the young arms we acquired this offseason either. I have never called it "white Flag #2" or said the sox are just saving $$ or rebuilding or anything else. I just don't see it as much of an upgrade. I think if they were going to deal BM so be it. but IMO they should have went after a more proven arm to fill out the rotation instead of more young unproven arms.

Twins will be down 2 starters (Liriano and Radke) and DET has some starters that are not likely to duplicate their 06 numbers. So we should have went for the jugular for 07 instead of gambling on prospects to fill the rotation.

CashMan

12-28-2006, 11:28 AM

Also lets add, Texas bid against themsleves when AROD was a FA, and paid him $250mill. So I think KW made a good deal just based on that.

southside rocks

12-28-2006, 12:41 PM

So tell me then, who will be the #5 starter?

Boone Logan. :redneck

Seriously, I don't know, and I don't know if the Sox organization knows yet. KW has said that McCarthy was never guaranteed that #5 starting spot in 2007, so really very little has changed.

If the roster stays what it is now, I would expect to see Gavin Floyd and a couple of other youngsters duke it out in spring training for #5.

But there's no reason to think the roster is going to be on Opening Day what it is today. KW may not be done dealing. I can't see around corners, I don't know! That's what makes the off-season so interesting, to me.

I totally take your point, that it would have made more immediate sense for McCarthy to be traded for a proven starter who then takes the #5 slot. The reason that wasn't done may indicate that KW has more deals planned.

fquaye149

12-28-2006, 01:43 PM

As I have stated 3-4 times now, it is history. Brandon is a done deal. Only time I'll pay attention to him is if he ever hurls against the Sox. Beyond that I really do not care what he does. I simply think the Sox did not live up to their end of the bargain with the guy. but that happens in any big business. Part of life if you ask me.

There's one thing I'd be willing to wager on though. All of the core supporters of the trade who are adamantly defending KW over it will probably be the first ones on here ripping him for doing the deal if Brandon has a good year for TX and the prospects the Sox got for him do not make an immediate impact.

two things:

1.) If we WERE to do that at least we'd be evaluating the trade once we had a reasonable reason TO make a conclusion about it.

2.) I would wager most of us "adamantly defending KW" would recognize, even if McCarthy does pitch well, that that was far from a foregone conclusion and that Kenny didn't make a horrible move regardless. Kind of like how only morons were making the claim at the end of this year that Kenny should have resigned Frank because he ended up having good #'s in 2006

AuroraSoxFan

12-28-2006, 02:25 PM

two things:

1.) If we WERE to do that at least we'd be evaluating the trade once we had a reasonable reason TO make a conclusion about it.

2.) I would wager most of us "adamantly defending KW" would recognize, even if McCarthy does pitch well, that that was far from a foregone conclusion and that Kenny didn't make a horrible move regardless. Kind of like how only morons were making the claim at the end of this year that Kenny should have resigned Frank because he ended up having good #'s in 2006

I never said it was a horrible move. At the moment there is no way in hell to tell if it is good/bad/indifferent. I didn't start any white flag threads or say the Sox have given up on 07 or threaten to dump tix or boycott the park or call sox brass any names or anything else. I just think if they were gonna unload BM because he is not proven they should have replaced him with someone that IS proven. I like the idea of stockpiling young arms for the future years. That can never hurt in the long run. I just think they could have done that while filling the rotation with an experienced guy who could come right in and contribute.

Ol' No. 2

12-28-2006, 02:31 PM

I never said it was a horrible move. At the moment there is no way in hell to tell if it is good/bad/indifferent. I didn't start any white flag threads or say the Sox have given up on 07 or threaten to dump tix or boycott the park or call sox brass any names or anything else. I just think if they were gonna unload BM because he is not proven they should have replaced him with someone that IS proven. I like the idea of stockpiling young arms for the future years. That can never hurt in the long run. I just think they could have done that while filling the rotation with an experienced guy who could come right in and contribute.What you're looking for is the mythical Somebody Else, who is ALWAYS better than anybody you have.